"Accelerationism" is an overdue corrective to years of gloom
Accelerationism and its techno-optimist offshoot “e/acc” are framed as a push to double down on rapid technological growth, especially AI, in response to rising pessimism and calls for regulation. Commenters question whether this is genuine philosophy or investor-friendly branding, arguing that recent tech has eroded privacy, autonomy and trust while often failing to deliver proportional benefits. The term’s roots in Marxist and far-right politics, its overlap with Effective Altruism–style extremism, and the real limits and risks of current AI systems all fuel skepticism that “accelerating” the status quo will improve life for most people.
What “accelerationism” / e/acc is about (per thread)
- Multiple definitions coexist and conflict:
- Original political accelerationism (left and right): push systems to crisis so a new order emerges.
- Far‑right variant tied to extremist, even terrorist, ideology.
- “e/acc” in tech Twitter: framed by some as growth‑oriented techno‑optimism (“solve problems via more tech and abundance, not austerity or limits”).
- Others in the thread say e/acc began as a joke / shitpost, or as a crypto‑style subculture heavy on slogans and light on substance.
- Some argue e/acc selectively borrows from earlier, darker accelerationist thinkers while publicly disavowing the most radioactive parts.
Tech distrust, ‘move fast and break things’, and public backlash
- Many posters say the “gloom” about tech is earned:
- Platforms broke privacy, social norms, user dignity; shipped addictive designs; ignored harms (e.g., social media mental health, misinformation).
- Widespread “enshittification”: products start good, then get worse as lock‑in and monetization ramp up.
- People increasingly use tech because they must (network effects, bureaucracy), not because they want to.
- Counter‑argument: disruption mostly reflects consumers choosing better or cheaper options (e.g., Uber vs taxis, Amazon vs small shops); critics are really defending incumbents.
Acceleration vs safety and governance (especially AI)
- Pro‑acceleration view:
- You can’t stop progress; attempting perfect global control is impossible, so assume AI won’t be existentially catastrophic and keep building.
- “Good” AI might outcompete “bad” AI; therefore the priority is to have the “good guys” get there first.
- Skeptical / cautious view:
- Historical harms (leaded gasoline, CFCs, plastics, social media, etc.) show “advancement” is not automatically improvement.
- Some see e/acc as an arrogant, high‑stakes bet where a small elite gambles with everyone else’s future.
- Comparisons to nuclear risk: imperfect control is possible and still worth trying; dismissive “if it’s that bad we’re doomed anyway” logic is criticized.
Broader critiques of e/acc and the current tech economy
- Many see e/acc as:
- A thin cover for “growth at all costs” and investor interests (“fuck the poors” in one framing).
- A way to avoid confronting inequality, monopolies, surveillance, and exploitative business models.
- More about talking, branding, and online aesthetic (like crypto/“HODL”) than about actually building useful infrastructure.
- Some participants accept the core growth‑over‑austerity instinct but say the current e/acc scene is cultish, unserious, and hostile to genuine risk analysis.